LTNs ‘hit poor hardest’ by driving traffic noise onto main roads

Low-traffic neighbourhoods penalise those who live on main roads while doing little to reduce congestion

AN ENVIRONMENTAL campaign group has condemned low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) for shifting noise from vehicles onto main roads where poorer communities are more likely to live.

The UK Noise Association said Grant Shapps’s “green transport revolution” was “deeply inequitable” because affluent areas where roads are most likely to be closed to traffic have higher levels of car ownership.

John Stewart, the group’s chairman, said: “Traffic noise is largely a mainroad problem. The policy in the UK has been to direct through traffic away from ‘residential’ roads onto the ‘main’ roads.

“It is deeply inequitable, made more so by the fact that it is the people living on the main roads who are less likely to own cars or be able to move away. They are victims of other people’s noise.”

He added that many people from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, and those who do not own cars, are standing up to the Transport Secretary’s policy because it affects them directly.

“It’s too easy to paint the opponents as simply people who are inconvenienced because they need to drive further,” he said, adding, “although, those people do exist.

“The most interesting thing is that, at long last, the residents of main roads are rising up and saying, ‘enough is enough’. And in many areas those campaigns are being led by members of the BAME communities; by people who don’t drive.”

Mr Stewart said his decision to use social media to question the Government’s LTN policy was met with an “avalanche” of tweets, many from white, middle-class cyclists who were “evangelical” about the issue and refused to consider any form of opposition.

“It was like standing in a street with a critical mass of cyclists mowing me down. Looking at their profiles, they were probably youngish guys, probably pretty well educated and reasonably well off,” he said.

Critics complain that as LTNs were introduced using emergency pandemic powers they have lacked adequate public consultation and are undemocratic.

Documents released under Freedom of Information laws have shown road closures slowed some 999 emergency response times and allowed criminals to escape pursuing officers in squad cars.

“I don’t think it occurred to some LTN supporters that others may have doubts about the policy,” Mr Stewart said.

“There was utter fury that an environmental group … should question them. They seemed evangelical, as if the LTN was the Holy Grail, rather than something that could be opposed.”

Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), should be my nirvana. They are quiet, with low levels of pollution; pleasant to walk in, easy to cycle around. The sort of liveable places the UK Noise Association, which I chair, has dreamt about for decades.

And yet I feel they are hugely problematic. In most cases, they simply displace traffic and pollution to the adjacent main and boundary roads. This makes no sense.

According to a recent survey, London is now the world’s most congested city, with most of this occurring on its main roads: 8.5 per cent of the capital’s population lives on these roads, about 720,000 people. And many more of us spend a lot of time on them. This is particularly true of poor people, who are less likely to own a car. In our big cities, a disproportionate number are from ethnic-minority communities. Lowtraffic neighbourhoods are therefore inherently unfair and socially divisive. Life inside the LTN may feel calm and peaceful, but it comes at a tremendous cost to those living just outside of it.

Many local authorities across the country established LTNs with the best of intentions, but they were never designed to ease congestion on main roads or to assist those living on them. Their purpose was to reduce traffic on “residential” roads; to make walking and cycling more attractive to inhabitants of these roads in the hope of encouraging them to use their cars less; and to promote active travel during the pandemic.

Many environmentalists, cyclists in particular, are evangelical in their support for LTNs. Some have worked hand-in-glove with local authorities to introduce them. They cannot see why any environmental body might entertain even a slither of doubt.

We are the wrong kind of enemy, it seems. Environmental believers feel most comfortable dealing with their traditional opponents, the devil they know: dyed-in-the-wool motorists who hate restrictions on cars. Yet they struggle to answer the concerns of fellow environmentalists, much less the frustrations of low-income residents who, after decades of silence, are mobilising in great numbers against LTNs. Often the most articulate objections come from the mothers and fathers of the minority-ethnic communities on those main roads who are concerned about the impact of extra traffic on their children.

When challenged about overspill traffic, many environmentalists resort to theory rather than face up to the reality of what is happening. They favour two main hypotheses: first, that residents of LTNs will drive less, thus reducing traffic on the main roads. And, second, that when road space is reduced, traffic evaporates. In reality, though some residents will use their cars less and some of the traffic will disappear, the quantities are quite unknown.

I get the distinct impression that LTNs are simply an experiment in traffic reduction whose outcome is uncertain. The residents on main and boundary roads are therefore the guinea pigs who may never escape the treadmill of high-traffic streets.

This is no basis for effective policymaking. Given the congestion on our streets, radical measures, probably including road-user charging in some places, will be required to get towns and cities moving again. But transformational change will only ever succeed with widespread buy-in from the population. And one of the pre-conditions for that is the policy is seen to be fair.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods may give the illusion of a better environment but they also act as a barrier to dealing with a much more pressing problem: traffic on main roads. It is essential that it is tackled. It will bring the biggest health benefits. And it will provide the best chance to cut congestion and unlock Britain’s great cities once again.